This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Graestan(Talk) 21:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a small addition to our User page policy, but before ever taking it to CT I want to make sure at least somebody shares my POV first.
We have an enourmous amount of inactive users, thousands if not tens of thousands of them, which is normal for any wiki. Many of them have been inactive for 2-3 years, which means they are extremely unlikely ever to return. Now, I believe that keeping their userpages and talk pages is not only okay, but necessary, but one thing bothers me: their user images. Our policy allows every user to upload 3 images, no matter how silly, stupid or non-canonical. But if the uploader puts an image on his page and then leaves the site forever, why are we forced to keep it? We regularly delete canonical images unused on the site, but have no way to get rid of fanart uploaded by someone who made no edits for years - is that right? Perharps the user made only 5 small edits years ago, perharps he made no main namespace edits at all, we're still dragging their images over these years. We put our efforts to maitain them: we categorize them, rename them, re-license them, while they no longer have any importance for the site whatsoever. Is that really okay with you?
I suggest the following: only active contributors should be allowed to keep their user images. Images of user gone years ago must be purged (not their userpages though). I suggest we use 18 months-long absence as a point of no return - a year and a half is enough time to make sure the user won't be back (although the length of the time period is of couse a subject to debate). When 18 months period since the last edit made by the user is passes, a droid would replace his page with Template:User left. That will serve double purpose: those browsing the page will know that the user is gone and whatever images they had on their pages will become unused, giving us a chance to finally delete them. The information on the userpage itself, however, will not be lost and could anytime be accessed from the page history.
This will allow us to get rid of hundreds of old images once implemented and will constantly add more images to our deletion list once their uploader's 18 months have expired. At the same time, regular active users won't have to worry about that at all, since even one edit per year would be enough to keep the userpage and the images intact. So, does anyone support this crazy idea at all? MauserComlink 02:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- GENIUS. One thing I'd amend it with, though, is replacing the {{user_left}} template with a new one for inactivity. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 02:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Per Culator. The second user that you linked to actually has a user image that I just tagged as unsourced and had to put on hold for my relicensing project because of that. I'd even support a requirement for one (or even ten) main namespace edit every six months to keep user images. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 02:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, good ideas all around. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with everything said here. OLIOSTER (talk)
04:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC) - Absolutely - JMAS Hey, it's me! 04:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Great idea. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 04:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I think the inactivity period for userpage blanking should be shorter, like a year or maybe even less. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 04:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- The specifics can be discussed either here or in the CT, but the overall ideas are good. CC7567 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- A great idea both to get rid of pesky user images, and to clean up some of the ridiculous user pages that have been here for years. --Eyrezer 05:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Good. Now the question is: can the bot sort users by the time elapsed since last edit? MauserComlink 05:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea. There may be a way, but it may end up being something we do manually. But we can work the technical details out after the policy details. I'd word the policy to make it OK for anyone to slap the inactivity template on within specific rules, so we don't have to limit the group that can work on it. This looks consensusy enough to go to a CT. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 14:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, there's a try:
- For the User policy - Rule 11: Per a consensus decision on XX/OX/2009, all users with no contributions for more than 18 months are
countedlabelled as Inactive andlose their rightare ineligible for 3 user images. Their userpages should be replaced with Template:Inactive to inform other users of their status and allow their images to be deleted. - For the Image policy - Rule 7: Users with no contributions for more than 18 months are
countedlabelled as Inactive andlose their rightare ineligible for 3 user images. - Any suggestion on the wording? If none, I'll take it to CT soon. MauserComlink 21:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think the phrase "lose their right" implies the wrong idea. Obviously, if the user becomes active again, he or she can again upload 3 user images. What about: "...all users with no contributions for more than 18 months are labelled as inactive and are ineligible for their 3 user images..." - Esjs(Talk) 21:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know about this. I'm usually one to believe that an user can always return and would they want their pages to be deleted? This isn't the same as administrator demotion. However the user images alone make this a worthwhile consideration. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)